Quboid wrote on Jan 3, 2015, 11:33:Do you expect whatever modules that they are working on at that time to get finished, and for most of the promised (supposedly funded but at that time undelivered) content to eventually see the light of day?

The modules they work on will see a release. Because the developement of these modules with a certain feature set is already funded.

If the speed of funding falls away quite quickly, any significant delay in development will force them to cut features - which would reduce confidence and therefore funding further.

The chance of a significant delay is, in my opinion, very high. Many developers with lots of experience face delays and there are a great many things that can go wrong even on much less ambitious projects. Only time will tell how many problems they have and how they're able to deal with them. Hopefully they will have the money to withstand some delays and the goodwill to be able to cut some features without incurring too much wrath.

I predict that they will have to make some pretty major cuts. Even if the money holds up, some of the things that they've promised just aren't going to be very good or aren't technically possible. In a normal project these features never see the light of day so no one is the wiser but in Star Citizen, some people will get upset.

Kajetan wrote on Jan 3, 2015, 10:34:When the funding money stops, we will get "only" the game he and his employees are already working on. Whats wrong with that?

Do you expect whatever modules that they are working on at that time to get finished, and for most of the promised (supposedly funded but at that time undelivered) content to eventually see the light of day?

I don't agree with comic #9. I've barely heard anyone claim that male characters are (edit: specifically sexually) objectified (I was going to call it a strawman argument but evidently it's not), the argument I have seen more is that male characters are also depicted unrealistically - but not sexually objectified.

eRe4s3r wrote on Jan 3, 2015, 04:09:

Icewind wrote on Jan 2, 2015, 18:21:Smells like that article was written by an SJW.

The last example (Muscle men not same as sexy women) is the primary proof you need to know this is typical SJW bullshit. Because of course a muscled hulk hogan men in every game is fucking SEXIST. No matter who's power-fantasy it is. Sexism is not defined by what the the creator intents!

This is superb argument reversal that you always see by SJW's "Oh, men can't be hurt by this, because it's their power fantasy!" as if every men wants to be hulk hogan. Or do you think all women want to be ugly and fat? You telling me there is no women that wants to look sexy? And suddenly when it's a man, that is no longer true? But when it's men it's ok, and when it's women it's evil?

I hate SJW's

There's a difference between sexy and sexually objectification. If a game clothes female characters to emphasis their T&A and the camera lingers there during cutscenes, and clothes males in practical clothing and focuses on their actions, then that game is sexist and reversing the argument doesn't change what the creator, regardless of what they intended, actually created.

Creston wrote on Jan 3, 2015, 00:32:I found this interview pretty interesting on PC gamer.

I start by asking if the money raised is enough. “It’s never enough!” he laughs. “We scale development according to how much money is coming in. The level of support dictates our level of ambition. This is a huge open-world game where you can go from planet to planet, so we could spend hundreds of millions of dollars on it quite easily.”

Wow. That is incredible. I'd say that's the first solid proof I've read indicating this game is in real trouble.

He sounds like everyone who has ever been caught up in a financial bubble.

It's all good while the money keeps coming in but when what? Stop announcing new features and finish the game with existing finances? Sure, as long as they've got their budgeting right ... which few developers seem to do even when they know what the final budget will be!

Yeahyeah Yeah wrote on Dec 30, 2014, 18:18:I defend speech and fiction I dislike, even detest. I recognize the complexities of issues, the balances that are best struck, the dangers of the well-intentioned who "Only want to make the world a better place!", and I don't position myself as the defender of the poor public who needs the constant stewardship of my preferred political and social cliques in order to truly prosper.

I also don't defend my political and social opinions as the stuff of utter scientific fact.

Do you dislike or detest this game, or what we know of it at this time?

If so, would you say that despite this game seeming really tasteless, it is the developer's business for them to develop what they want regardless of our opinions?

Flatline wrote on Dec 30, 2014, 16:58:Dude, there are at least half a dozen posts in this thread where people are saying this "crosses the line" or "pushes the boundary" or is "going too far".

No, nobody is saying "CENSOR ALL THE THINGS" verbatim but they're using language that certain things like this game shouldn't be allowed. It's disingenuous to pretend that it isn't a passive-aggressive call for censorship.

There are people (including me) who are essentially saying "this should not be made" but that is very different to saying "this should not be allowed to be made". The former is their own opinion and their own freedom of expression, it is not a call for anyone else's freedom of expression to be limited. This is not disingenuous, the distinction is very real and very significant.

I'm sure there are people who would want this completely banned. I don't agree with them.

edit:

You probably have a higher proportion of posts discussing social issues than anyone else here. Does that make you an SJW?

I was wondering about that too. Is he an Anti-Social Justice Warrior or a Social Injustice Warrior?

Mad Max RW wrote on Dec 29, 2014, 19:57:I love how the comments on that turned into a retarded slap fight between youtubers and redditors.

Use the Chrome extension Hide Fedora, you won't regret it.

What does it do? "those annoying le reddit, fedora, m'lady type of comments on YouTube should be removed" - what does that mean? Does it hide YouTube comments based on key words? Does it hide comments based on the user's own criteria? Is it just a way of pretending people you disagree with don't exist?

Sennheiser won't disappoint. I haven't used their HD 280 headphones but its reputation is impeccable and my HD 600 phones from 15 years ago still sounded great when I last dusted them off.

I use Logitech G930 headset because it is wireless. The sound quality is good but wireless will never sound as good as equivalently priced wired sets. The battery lasts about 8 hours, which in practise means plugging them in overnight after a couple of gaming sessions. The virtual surround sound is pretty good; not as good as well placed speakers but better than any other headphones/headset I've used, physical or virtual.

Why the hell wouldn't people be angry? That guy is just an obnoxious cock and there is a world of difference between what he's doing and all the other examples he lists. By ignoring all context, what he is doing has nothing to do with the surveillance debate (and as such, neither does my criticism of him).

Shineyguy wrote on Dec 22, 2014, 13:29:You know, it's as if these countries talk about invading the U.S. without considering the fact that a good portion of our Civilian population is armed. It's great that they think they can take on our Military 1 on 1, but they never consider the people that live here and know their land, but also own guns.

Hahaha well, I think I would rather rely on our armed forces. People around here have enough problems getting city council organized, let alone a defense against an aggressor. Anyone with the combined air/sea/land might and infrastructure to actually invade the US would not have any problem handling Surburban Bob with his Remington 870.

That's all fantasy land stuff anyway, North Korea can't even maintain its roads, they aren't invading ours. All of the posturing is in hopes of loosening economic sanctions.

They're not actually threatening invasion, that would be too stupid for them to even lie about. They're ready to "stand in confrontation" so they're not even claiming to be able to beat any military, never mind a huge military, never mind launch the sort of attack that made Homefront and that Red Dawn remake look even stupider.

Comet wrote on Dec 22, 2014, 09:56:One way or the other as far as i know there are only two model to support a MMO. The subscription model. And the F2P model. Both with their pros and cons.Could you please confirm if you believe every game following the F2P model is in your opinion P2W?

Not if the things you can buy are purely cosmetic. I haven't played GW2 but solely by your description yes, it is P2W. Star Citizen is an interesting game and perhaps it will be great but there are plenty of reasons to have concerns - and talking about free-to-play models in a game that isn't free to play is one of them.

Comet wrote on Dec 22, 2014, 05:28:Some of you mention P2W. have you done the math? A game is P2W when it is easier and cheaper to pay to get something especial or powerful instead of taking the time to get it. As an example, if you wanted you could get the best armor or weapon in a game like Guild Wars 2 using real money. But people don't consider GW2 P2W. Why? Because to get that best armor or weapon you would have to waste so much money that it makes a lot more sense just playing the game. Same goes for SC. If you want, you can use real money to get a big ship. But that would cost you hundreds of dollars. It will make a lot more sense to just play the game to get the ship. SC model is exactly the same as the model used in GW2. If you consider a game like Guild Wars 2 P2W then yes. SC is P2W. SC and pretty much every single F2P game in the market. If you don't consider GW2 P2W then SC is not P2W as it is following the same model where it makes more sense to play the game instead of wasting real money.

I don't agree with your definition. P2W is easier but by definition not cheaper, but that's not my issue with it. In my opinion a game is P2W when you can pay to gain an advantage over other players or when it provides an incentive for the developer to penalise non-paying players. Star Citizen fails both these criteria.

Buying a better ship will provide an advantage in PvP or any competitive scene (e.g. racing to catch a nice bounty, mining where resources are limited). Exactly how much of an advantage depends of a lot of variables, many of which I don't know, but ultimately a better ship is better.

A bigger concern is a question of balance. Will these ships be as easy to earn in-game as they would be if they couldn't be bought? We will never know but there's really no developer I trust not to just tweak things to make getting something like a ship a little bit harder than they think gives the best experience to try to glean a few more "micro"transactions. This affects everything, presumably including single player if purchases carry over.